The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.

[ferryman]

From the title of the thread.  The PJ believed the dogs to be infallible.  Thus the sold a pup idiom.

Grime actually didn't say that Eddie had never been wrong.  He said the dog had never alerted falsely to the cadaver scent of a dead wild animal or to food.

But that was turned on the McCanns in their arguido interviews and by Almeida in his report.

[j.rob]

Kate always seems to 'know' more than any other professionals. She very often expresses 'contempt' for anyone who advances a theory about the disappearance of her daughter that does not agree with her own theory.

If you take the hypothesis that the McCann's have some knowledge and/or involvement with the disappearance of their daughter then clearly the McCann's would have a motive for rubbishing any other professional or expert who cast doubt on the McCann's version of events.

If the McCann's were genuinely entirely innocent of any involvement whatsoever, I would imagine that they would have reacted with alarm to the findings of the sniffer dogs, irrespective of how accurate they may or may not be. Anything that might lead to a conclusion that the air of death hung around their apartment/the resort/their car could lead to the fear that their daughter would not be found alive.

Kate reacts to the dog's finding 'with contempt' but yet she gave credence to mystics and clairvoyants and to a detective agency with links to organised crime. She rubbishes an entire police force but claims she hangs on to threads of hopes from 'sightings' all over the world.

She 'just knows' what happened to her daughter - how does she 'just know?' Is she a clairvoyant? Does she have mystical powers?

Err - no - actually she trained in the sciences where evidence is considered to be much more relevant than mysticism.

So the only way that Kate can 'just know' what happened to her daughter is if she has evidence to support her hypothesis. That evidence could only come from her (or a reliable witness) seeing what happened or being involved with what happened.

Thanks Kate, you have provided the world with a very useful piece of first hand evidence from a key witness in the disappearance of your daughter.

[Mr Gray]

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon%20Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf

http://pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf

Scientific experiments disagree, John.

The second link is particularly interesting as it was blinded, eliminating any handler cueing.

Before anyone starts, I'm well aware that dogs alert without forensic back up are useless, legally speaking.

This is an interesting paper and backs up my own thoughts. It talks about detecting blood...and detecting victims remains (or bits)....nowhere does it talk of detecting cadaver

[Cariad]

This is an interesting paper and backs up my own thoughts. It talks about detecting blood...and detecting victims remains (or bits)....nowhere does it talk of detecting cadaver

Did you read the second link? The carpet one?

[Wonderfulspam]

Kate always seems to 'know' more than any other professionals. She very often expresses 'contempt' for anyone who advances a theory about the disappearance of her daughter that does not agree with her own theory.

If you take the hypothesis that the McCann's have some knowledge and/or involvement with the disappearance of their daughter then clearly the McCann's would have a motive for rubbishing any other professional or expert who cast doubt on the McCann's version of events.

If the McCann's were genuinely entirely innocent of any involvement whatsoever, I would imagine that they would have reacted with alarm to the findings of the sniffer dogs, irrespective of how accurate they may or may not be. Anything that might lead to a conclusion that the air of death hung around their apartment/the resort/their car could lead to the fear that their daughter would not be found alive.

Kate reacts to the dog's finding 'with contempt' but yet she gave credence to mystics and clairvoyants and to a detective agency with links to organised crime. She rubbishes an entire police force but claims she hangs on to threads of hopes from 'sightings' all over the world.

She 'just knows' what happened to her daughter - how does she 'just know?' Is she a clairvoyant? Does she have mystical powers?

Err - no - actually she trained in the sciences where evidence is considered to be much more relevant than mysticism.

So the only way that Kate can 'just know' what happened to her daughter is if she has evidence to support her hypothesis. That evidence could only come from her (or a reliable witness) seeing what happened or being involved with what happened.

Thanks Kate, you have provided the world with a very useful piece of first hand evidence from a key witness in the disappearance of your daughter.

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."


Reporter:  "What evidence do you have that there was an abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't have..."

Kate McCann: "Because I know. I was there, I found my daughter gone. I know more than you do. I know what I saw."

[Mr Gray]

Did you read the second link? The carpet one?

 I think Ive read it before but will check

[pathfinder73]

Yes make fun of the dogs (one bark for yes two for no) but bring Krugel in to locate her body. What a contradiction. I would rather listen to the dogs.

[AnneGuedes]

From the title of the thread.  The PJ believed the dogs to be infallible.  Thus the sold a pup idiom.

I'm afraid, John, that the PJ's belief is a myth. They ignored such dogs existed (did you know? I didn't), in France for instance there are 12 and they resolve about 15 cases a year.
The PJ trusted the NPIA and I think that was the right thing to do. If the UK dogs hadn't reacted at all, you could suspect the travel, the heat, the lack of cold country, but they reacted in determined situations and, had they not reacted it, that would have been also very revealing.
If they hadn't reacted in 5A, they wouldn't have been sent to the villa and the Scenic wouldn't have joined RM's cars which were the original target defined by Prof. Harrison.
Nobody would suspect that Madeleine died in the flat, though after so many years people would suspect she had some kind of fatal accident outside. The hypotheses would be implausible abduction from bed vs plausible wandering off/accidental death.

[AnneGuedes]

Yes make fun of the dogs (one bark for yes two for no) but bring Krugel in to locate her body. What a contradiction. I would rather listen to the dogs.

Note that curiously the contract with the NPIA required that all kinds of proposals about the body localisation had to be tolerated by the PJ ! This is why Prof Harrison examined the hair device report (a google map with 3 flags..) of the body hunter.
Strange UK (for someone who was educated in Descartes country) !

[Mr Gray]

Did you read the second link? The carpet one?

 Ive read the link again..its the one Ive seen before. Theres no doubt that dogs can detect the scent when present...this doesn't answer the question in Portugal. What happens if the scent isn't present and the dog is repeatedly led back to the test area? why did eddie not alert to cuddle cat and then alert to it. Was there some cross contamination...lots and lots of questions

[Mr Gray]

the tiles had been kept in sealed jars...what would have happened if the tiles had left in the open air for 3 months...what would the results have been then

[AnneGuedes]

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."
Reporter:  "What evidence do you have that there was an abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't have..."
Kate McCann: "Because I know. I was there, I found my daughter gone. I know more than you do. I know what I saw."

Mrs McCann is very likely saying the truth. "I found my daughter gone/dead". It must be irritating somehow to hear people doubt your story telling and consider they can imagine a hundred of tales that are all wrong.

[AnneGuedes]

I know it because I've read the carpet square experiment and I've read the case files of the Madeleine investigation

It's not an answer and you know it. I wonder what Mr Grime did to you.

[Cariad]

Ive read the link again..its the one Ive seen before. Theres no doubt that dogs can detect the scent when present...this doesn't answer the question in Portugal. What happens if the scent isn't present and the dog is repeatedly led back to the test area? why did eddie not alert to cuddle cat and then alert to it. Was there some cross contamination...lots and lots of questions

I was bothered by handler cueing too. Then I watched the video in 5A. Mr Grime repeatedly called Eddie back to one of the beds in the same manner that he did with the car, yet Eddie didn't alert.

I can't explain cuddlecat. It does look odd doesn't it?

I also think that a dog not alerting is a dog doing it's job too. I don't see any benefit in forcing a dog to alert if there's nothing there. If Madeleine had been found alive, Mr Grime loses credibility and therefore his livelihood.

[Benice]

It's not an answer and you know it. I wonder what Mr Grime did to you.

One could ask you the same question about the McCanns.

BTW I know of no-one who would say 'I found my daughter 'gone' -  if they meant they found them dead.   In that particular context 'gone'  can only mean she had disappeared IMO

Just as anyone saying ''I came home and found my dog gone'' ....would never be taken as meaning .... 'I came home and found my dog dead' ....by someone whose first language is English.   They would assume the dog had disappeared.

When a person dies, who is expected to die - then to say.... 'He/she's gone'' ....when death finally occurs is possible in that particular context, but not in the context you describe IMO.